Material Design Icons | Hacker News Reader

Material Design Icons

github.com

127 pointsytzvan32 comments

FYI, the licence on these is copyleft. I don't think it is legally clear whether an entire app or website would take on the licence, and I would be surprised if Google tried to enforce the licence in that way, but it's worth keeping in mind in case using it for anything particularly critical.

https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/master/...

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

> All icons are released under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.

That's a bit disappointing. Adding a spot attributions to the page can sometimes be a nonstarter for a lot of the designers I work with. I really wish more design assets would opt for something more like an MIT license.

Lots of people like to include things in a larger work without crediting the sources for their designs. If a given design was under an MIT license, it would still have to be attributed somewhere since the copyright still resides with the original designer/copyright-holder. The license states: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." So, it should be in there somewhere. Including when you utilize MIT-licensed images and deliver a greater work including them to a client.

I think you're thinking more of public domain, which has no copyright attached and can be used however you'd like.

I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the licenses may be wrong. If so, please do correct me.

As far as I understand, MIT-style license requirements can be satisfied by comments in the HTML or CSS whereas Creative Commons Attribution style licenses require the attribution to be visible to the end user.

It was my understanding (or interpretation) that Creative Commons Attribution could go in a different page. I normally add a Copyright or License link in the footer that leads to a page with a list of software and artwork used in the app. Otherwise, I just put a comment in the caption if it's a one off thing.

Either way, I don't see what the issue is with designers not wanting to attribute.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

"You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."

Based on my earlier discussions with legal folks, a separate page is just fine. For websites, I link the Copyright 20XX wording in the footer to a page that includes mention of all the sources of designs, themes, etc, even when not required.

I don't know if an HTML comment would satisfy the requirement for an image. Then again, MIT is source code license and not designed for images anyway. CC licenses are designed for all kinds of things. The designers in this case wanted attribution, so the choice is to either use it and attribute or not use it.

It's worth nothing that CC-BY-SA is incompatible with the GPL and similar licenses, so you would not be able to compile the images from Material Design into a GPLed app. You can include them with a GPLed app and load them at runtime, though.

Too many of them have an overall square or perfect circle shape. If you squint, they look the same. Better to use varying shapes and take advantage of our good ability to distinguish silhouettes.

you talk like they took design and usability classes.

this is all marketing

Here's the CSS sprite sheets, in case you're wondering where they are:

https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/tree/master/...

However they're as such: icon-ic_beenhere_black_24dp

Not exactly as usable as fa fa-check.

They've also released Sketch resources for Material Design.[0]

0.http://www.google.com/design/spec/resources/sticker-sheets.h...

What's with the huge difference in file sizes on the Illustrator and Photoshop version downloads (~200MB+) vs Sketch (~3MB)?

PSD file size I could understand if they had rasterized the 2 color icons but shouldn't vector AI file sizes be similar to the vector Sketch file sizes?

Illustrator's .ai files have a fairly huge base size. An empty document is over 640 kB.

I think there's a bunch of stuff in the file to support older Illustrator versions -- PostScript libraries, stuff like that...

.sketch file doesn't include bitmaps.

For iOS developers that want to use the new PDF image catalogs in Xcode 6 (which automatically generate the @1x, @2x and @3x images so you don't have to add them individually) I have forked the repository and added them at https://github.com/programmingthomas/material-design-icons.

Anyone know how different this is from Polymer's icons?

http://www.polymer-project.org/components/core-icons/demo.ht...

Many of them look similar - guessing Polymer is a large subset of this new repo?

You may want to use this icons as web font: http://zavoloklom.github.io/material-design-iconic-font

I did not see a save icon in this icon set. Could this finally mean the death of the floppy disk?

good stuff. Anybody know there are material-design stylesheets for web development?

npm? Really? That seems weird.

npm is actually a great tool to get dependencies of all kinds, not just JavaScript files.

Isn't that what bower is for?

Sure - but a ton of people are swapping over to things like Browserify, which use NPM as the package manager even on the front end.

https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/master/...

Yes. npm should be node dependencies and bower is library/framework dependencies.

No. NPM is used all the time for front end specific dependencies. Even angular uses it now

Oh, good to know. I'll look into the reasoning for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com